The effect of targeting tolerance of children's negative emotions among anxious parents of children with anxiety disorders: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Following cognitive behavioural therapy for child anxiety a significant minority of children fail to lose their diagnosis status. One potential barrier is high parental anxiety. We designed a pilot RCT to test claims that parental intolerance of the child’s negative emotions may impact treatment outcomes. Parents of 60 children with an anxiety disorder, who were themselves highly anxious, received either brief parent-delivered treatment for child anxiety or the same treatment with strategies specifically targeting parental tolerance of their child’s negative emotions. Consistent with predictions, parental tolerance of the child’s negative emotions significantly improved from pre- to post-treatment. However, there was no evidence to inform the direction of this association as improvements were substantial in both groups. Moreover, while there were significant improvements in child anxiety in both conditions, there was little evidence that this was associated with the improvement in parental tolerance. Nevertheless, findings provide important clinical insight, including that parent-led treatments are appropriate even when the parent is highly anxious and that it may not be necessary to adjust interventions for many families

Scoping Review: Digital mental health interventions for children and adolescents affected by war

Objective Over 200 million children and adolescents live in countries affected by violent conflict, are likely to have complex mental health needs, and struggle to access traditional mental health services. Digital mental health interventions have the potential to overcome some of the barriers in accessing mental health support. We performed a scoping review to map existing digital mental health interventions relevant for children and adolescents affected by war, examine the strength of the evidence base, and inform the development of future interventions. Method Based on a pre-registered strategy, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, APA PsychInfo, and Google Scholar from the creation of each database to 30th September 2022, identifying k=6,843 studies. Our systematic search was complemented by extensive consultation with experts from the GROW Network. Results The systematic search identified 6 relevant studies: one evaluating digital mental health interventions for children and adolescents affected by war and five for those affected by disasters. Experts identified 35 interventions of possible relevance. The interventions spanned from universal prevention to specialist-guided treatment. Most interventions directly targeted young people and parents/carers and were self-guided. A quarter of the interventions were tested through randomized controlled trials. Because most interventions were not culturally or linguistically adapted to relevant contexts, their implementation potential was unclear. Conclusion There is very limited evidence for the use of digital mental health interventions for children and adolescents affected by war at present. The review provides a framework to inform the development of new interventions

Implementing precision methods in personalizing psychological therapies: barriers and possible ways forward

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordData availability: No data was used for the research described in the article.Highlights: • Personalizing psychological treatments means to customize treatment for individuals to enhance outcomes. • The application of precision methods to clinical psychology has led to data-driven psychological therapies. • Applying data-informed psychological therapies involves clinical, technical, statistical, and contextual aspects

Editorial Statement About JCCAP’s 2023 Special Issue on Informant Discrepancies in Youth Mental Health Assessments: Observations, Guidelines, and Future Directions Grounded in 60 Years of Research

Issue 1 of the 2011 Volume of the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP) included a Special Section about the use of multi-informant approaches to measure child and adolescent (i.e., hereafter referred to collectively as “youth”) mental health (De Los Reyes, 2011). Researchers collect reports from multiple informants or sources (e.g., parent and peer, youth and teacher) to estimate a given youth’s mental health. The 2011 JCCAP Special Section focused on the most common outcome of these approaches, namely the significant discrepancies that arise when comparing estimates from any two informant’s reports (i.e., informant discrepancies). These discrepancies appear in assessments conducted across the lifespan (Achenbach, 2020). That said, JCCAP dedicated space to understanding informant discrepancies, because they have been a focus of scholarship in youth mental health for over 60 years (e.g., Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Glennon & Weisz, 1978; Kazdin et al., 1983; Kraemer et al., 2003; Lapouse & Monk, 1958; Quay et al., 1966; Richters, 1992; Rutter et al., 1970; van der Ende et al., 2012). Thus, we have a thorough understanding of the areas of research for which they reliably appear when clinically assessing youth. For instance, intervention researchers observe informant discrepancies in estimates of intervention effects within randomized controlled trials (e.g., Casey & Berman, 1985; Weisz et al., 2017). Service providers observe informant discrepancies when working with individual clients, most notably when making decisions about treatment planning (e.g., Hawley & Weisz, 2003; Hoffman & Chu, 2015). Scholars in developmental psychopathology observe these discrepancies when seeking to understand risk and protective factors linked to youth mental health concerns (e.g., Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Hou et al., 2020; Ivanova et al., 2022). Thus, the 2011 JCCAP Special Section posed a question: Might these informant discrepancies contain data relevant to understanding youth mental health? Suppose none of the work in youth mental health is immune from these discrepancies. In that case, the answer to this question strikes at the core of what we produce―from the interventions we develop and implement, to the developmental psychopathology research that informs intervention development

Flawed Data and Unjustified Conclusions Cannot Elevate the Status of Women in Science

Scientists can and should critically examine the dynamics of, and biases within, their own fields. However, AlShebli and colleagues’ (2020) publication neither advances scientific knowledge nor makes empirically justified recommendations in their recent analysis of the citation rates of 3 million unique senior-junior scientist co-author pairs. The authors assess how ostensible markers of career success and the assumed gender of senior co-authors predict junior co-authors’ subsequent citation rates and find that women who publish with women are less likely to be cited. On the basis of these findings, they suggest that both senior and junior women should avoid working with, or being mentored by, other women. Based on correlational and unidimensional data, AlShebli et al. further offer policy recommendations for increasing diversity in science. In this brief commentary, we first explain methodological problems limiting the validity of the findings, then highlight significant conceptual concerns that undermine the conclusions drawn, and conclude by noting the lack of novelty in what the data do (if accurate) suggest about women’s careers in sciences